One last reminder not to forget about this ballot initiative tomorrow. Whatever your view on this amendment is, please remember to mark down your preference in tomorrows elections.

As someone already mentioned a ballot without any marked preference is effectively counted as a no vote. According to the latest Star Tribune poll this one will be close with 53% in favor in that poll. 50% is required for the measure to pass.

I would much rather walk into a State Park office and hand them $60.00 (and would) than to vote for an amendment like this.

Cool, come on over to my place, I'll put a sign above the door that says State Park Office so you'll feel right at home opening your wallet and leaving a generous donation behind!

I do agree though, it seems really odd to make it a constitutional amendment, and lumping arts and clean water all under one giant umbrella seems really odd, and honestly I like both, but I think they can just go about it the way everyone else that wants money from the state does it.

The big question is, which side is the misguided side? I still haven't decided for sure how I'm going to vote on this.

IN MY OPINION, anyone who thinks a Constitutional Amendment is a good place to put funding initiatives is incredibly misguided. Like I said above, setting this precendent basically absolves our legislature of any responsibility. It excuses incompetence and it invites misappropriation of funds. Who doesn't want clean water, more parks for caching, and more art centers to visit.. the fact is, these things are all fine but using the Constitution as the means to pay for them is irresponsible. Again, MY OPINION, and a darn good one.

If anyone chooses to use MY position to vote for the amendment simply out of spite (I suspect there are some of you), then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, simply put. If you vote for it, be sure to vote for it based on YOUR OWN CRITICAL THINKING (rather than emotion).

Iíll admit, I voted yes. Only because Iíve been watching our lakes dying and want something done about it as urgently as possible. Perhaps there are better ways, but not as easy as filling in a little oval on a piece of paper that I was filling out anyway. Weíve all taken a lot out of our environment. I saw this as a way to give something back.

It had nothing to with trying to spite anyone._________________...formerly 'dachebo'.

I also was yes. I studied it very caefully and realize that this is not a blank check to the state. there will be 8 citizens and 4 legisslaters on a board that has to recomend all expenditures a nd then the legislature has to approve those expenditures. Every thing is sopose to be competive and the DNR has to compeate with all other outdoor groups. the arts I am not sure of how there part goes but I never let perfect get in the way of good.
Everyone should make sure that they write those on the committe what we would like so that trails and parks that allow caching get thier share.
The Minnesota outdoor heritage alliance and Outdoor News gave me the convincing dope.

I think if they had proposed this without the "arts" and other parts of this amendment, it would have gotten the money without having to have gone to us..and if it did go to us, I may have considered voting yes.